13 February 2007 4:50 PM

A great wave of liberal complacency

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

On Saturday night, as I travelled home knowing that the story was about to break, I knew that the liberal establishment would try as hard as it could to pretend that the new information about David Cameron's true attitude to drugs was not important.

I predicted to myself that there would be plenty of calls to 'move on' and righteous bluster about ' really, what does it matter what a grown man got up to when he was 15-year-old schoolboy?'

And I was not disappointed. Former citadels of conservatism in the media one by one fell into line with the liberal elite conventional wisdom that Mr Cameron is entitled to a private past.

Let me digress for a moment here about a minor instance of double standards. What I did in the distant past is regarded as hugely important by all my opponents. By comparison with Mr Cameron, I am an utterly obscure person. I have never stood for public office, let alone held it, or drawn a salary from the taxpayer. Yet on almost any occasion when I am allowed on to the liberal BBC, someone has to point out that I was once a revolutionary Marxist.

Why, only the other day, when I appeared on the BBC's 'The Daily Politics' programme, a producer thought it worth running this information across the bottom of the screen as I was introduced. I had been asked by a BBC person to supply "interesting/quirky points about yourself." She explained. " We run straps on screen as you are on air so that the viewers can find out a little bit more about you! For example, perhaps you do kick boxing!

The exclamation marks are the BBC's.

These were supposed to be things that viewers might find surprising, so - while I don't do kick-boxing, I said that I ride a bicycle, despite being unconvinced by the current global warming panic, and that I write books, which I thought would surprise them, since I was sure most of their viewers think conservative-minded people cannot read, let alone write.

So, first I didn't supply this information myself to them (my left-wing counterpart, Zoe Williams, chose to reveal her facility at whispering to dogs, which duly ran along the bottom of the screen). They thought it was important. Second, it wasn't quirky. Third, it isn't exactly unknown. I put my stint on 'Socialist Worker' in my Who's Who' entry, so as to draw any researcher's attention to my Trotskyist youth. I recently applied before a public tribunal for the MI5 records of my revolutionary years. I tipped off several newspapers about the hearing, including the Guardian, which covered it. By the way, Jenny Scott, the presenter of 'the Daily Politics' was five years old when I left the International Socialists, 32 years ago. Zoe Williams was still eating baby food at the time.

It's not that I mind the information being known. It's true and important. But I do mind that many other people with similar left-wing - Trotskyist or Communist - backgrounds, who have not by any means abandoned the cause of the left, are never hung with this label - even though it says much more about them, politically, than it says about me. What's quite clear from all I say and do is that I repudiate the beliefs and actions of that period of my life.

It's what they think about it now, and how it affects their actions now, that matters. not what they did then. The same of course goes for the legions of liberal journalists, academics, media types and politicians who took illegal drugs when they were younger. All right, they can have a free pass for that. Heaven knows, my teenage years were one stupid, irresponsible action after another. I excuse none of these things, and if I ever sought political office I'd expect them to be dug up and raked over, which wouldn't be specially enjoyable, but would have to be endured. People want to know who you really are, if you seek to govern them. They also need to know you can admit to having done wrong.

Which brings me back from my digression. The important thing about Mr Cameron is not what he did then - but what he has done since and what he says about this now.

Now, if you didn't actually read the Mail on Sunday story you probably wouldn't know that the forthcoming biography of Mr Cameron doesn't only refer to his actions as a 15-year-old. It also states that he continued to smoke cannabis during his time at Oxford. This, note, was after he was admonished and punished for it at Eton, and had come quite close to expulsion from that school - something which would have gravely upset his family even if it hadn't bothered him at the time. And also while he knew perfectly well that it was a criminal offence.

This biography, written by journalists from a liberal newspaper, one of whom is himself an Old Etonian, is clearly deeply sympathetic to Mr Cameron - though probably not as sympathetic as its rival, by Mr Cameron's chief Fleet Street cheerleader Bruce Anderson. We'll soon see. Both are out in the next few weeks.

Its disclosures handily satisfy a continuing media hunger to know more about Mr Cameron's past, without actually going into dangerous territory, that is to say, Mr Cameron's actions once he was no longer a student. This isn't surprising in any case. In the course of making a TV programme about Mr Cameron, I have compiled a long, long list of people who have refused to talk to me about him - presumably because they know I'm hostile to the Cameron project. Mr Cameron himself is at the top of that list.

This brings to mind Val Hayes's jest here last week:"...In other news, Peter Tatchell is producing a film about Mail on Sunday columnists. Special guest appearances by David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and Sir Ian Blair. Additional analysis by Michael Portillo, Diane Abbot and Muslim Parliament leader Dr. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui. Mary Ann Sieghart originally declined an invitation to participate, but suddenly changed her mind within the last week or so. Written by Polly Toynbee. Narrated by Germaine Greer. Copyright (C) 2007 BBC / Millbank Co-productions. Directed by Alistair Campbell."

Not bad, except that Peter Tatchell and I get on rather well (I admire his courage in harrying Robert Mugabe, and he made an excellent contribution to my last programme on civil liberty, condemning the police treatment of Joe and Helen Roberts). I might add, that even if such a programme were to be made by Mary Ann Sieghart, or Gerry Adams, I'd co-operate with it. Why be afraid of talking to your opponents?

Well, let's see. Back to the near-unamimity of the media about Mr Cameron's cannabis difficulty. One BBC reporter gave her opinion (which I didn't ask for, and which she is paid to keep to herself) that only a minority of conservatives, or Conservatives, would be concerned. How would she know? I very much doubt if she is one.

There was the complacent acceptance of Mr Cameron's own view by the Home Secretary, John Reid. How come this unrepentant old Communist is so soft on an Old Etonian toff caught doing wrong, and how come New Labour turns its back on such a juicy opportunity to deal a blow to its main opponent? An interesting question in itself, isn't it?

And then there is this remark to Sky News by a Mr Peter Ainsworth, a Useless Tory MP: "It's something that happened to a schoolboy 20 years ago and I don't think it really has any serious political pull today. To be quite honest, most of our generation did [smoke cannabis]. I mean it was kind of the odd ones out who didn't."

Ah, the 'odd ones out'. By this he presumably means the strong-minded ones who refused to follow the crowd, the people we're supposed to admire, when we read about them in history books but whom -in practice - we almost always despise, bully and mock when we actually meet them.

Now, given the horrible dangers of cannabis to a developing brain, now increasingly recognised by a hitherto complacent medical establishment, and the grave fears of parents of teenage children that their sons and daughters may destroy their intellects and their futures by taking this nasty poison, which side would you want a Conservative MP (or leader) to be on here?

Should he be giving backing and moral support to the courageous individual who stands up against the 'dealers' who are of course not sinister figures from South America, but more usually friends and classmates? Or should he be sniggering with the crowd, jeering at the 'geek' and the 'boffin' who won't join in? Mr Ainsworth's words are actively despicable. I very much hope that the electors of East Surrey will dispense with him at the next opportunity.

The first time I ever noticed the existence of David Cameron was when he put his name to the shameful report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on Drugs, his only significant political act before becoming Tory leader. The report, a feeble collapse into the arms of the 'harm reduction' drug appeasers, was a grave blow to all those parents, teachers and others trying to hold the line against the drugs cult spread by rock music and other powerful forces. One proper conservative MP, Angela Watkinson, refused to sign it. It wasn't as if Mr Cameron was obliged to support this stuff. But he did.

And that's the significant thing. What if Mr Cameron's political position on this matter is influenced by his past? Well and good, if so, provided that we know that - but in that case it is essential for us to know his past actions which are relevant to this, preferably from him.

Yet even on this occasion, Mr Cameron has managed to give the impression of candour, without actually being candid. You might think that, after these revelations, he might actually have confirmed what had been said, as he posed modernly, wearing jeans and an open shirt, yet traditionally, in the gateway of a country churchyard, flanked by his wife and charming little daughter.

In that case, study what he actually said: "Good morning. Like many people I did things when I was young that I shouldn't have done and that I regret. But I do believe that politicians are entitled to a past that is private and that remains private, so I won't be making any commentary on what's in the newspapers today.

"Look, I am not issuing denials. What I am saying is I think it's important politicians are entitled to expect a private past. Today I am a member of parliament, someone putting themselves forward to be prime minister, so you are perfectly entitled to follow me around to poke cameras up my nose...you can come and watch me cook Sunday lunch if you want, although I wouldn't recommend it. But I do think politicians are entitled to a private past - I think that's an important principle, and one I am going to stick to...I have always said law makers should not be law breakers, but ...we are entitled to a private past and that is the principle I am going to stick to..."

There is no confirmation. There is no denial. There is certainly no general condemnation of drug taking as wrong and illegal. It is, in fact, at best a personal non-denial, laced with repeated references to a 'principle', which Mr Cameron has invented, that politicians are entitled to something called a 'private past'. In what way is this idea - that politicians are entitled to refuse to speak about their lives before they went into politics - a principle? Does Mr Cameron never study the biographies or obituaries of major political figures. Is he wholly uninterested in their years before they became MPs?

How on earth are Tory associations supposed to select candidates if those who come before them are entitled 'on principle' to remain dumb about their pasts, until someone writes a biography of them? When the short-listed hopefuls are taken into the back room and asked the traditional question "Is there anything in your past that might, if it came out, cause us or you serious embarrassment?" will they now all be entitled to adopt the 'Cameron Defence' and say that, on principle, their lives before they went into politics are a secret?

It's not a principle at all, just a plausible-sounding dodge to avoid answering legitimate questions, and also to evade any discussion of the influences on his current opinions.

Finally, let us come to the real point of all this. Why is it morally wrong to take drugs? First, and universally, it is wrong, as it happens for the same reason that it is morally wrong to get drunk, or to knowingly destroy your own health by, say, smoking. These actions are wrong because they are an ungrateful misuse of faculties given you by others, whose main purpose is to be used for the benefit of those around you, and a rejection of the care and nurture that others have lavished on you from birth.

It is wrong because, even if it places you, and you alone, in danger of injury, death or ill-health, others, who love you, or depend upon you, or feel responsible for you, will be wounded by whatever damage you do to yourself. If you go further, and take the wheel of a vehicle, or the controls of aeroplane, while affected by drugs, your responsibility is far greater.

Second, it is wrong to impair your perception of the world around you. If you are dissatisfied with what you see, then it is an act of retreat and cowardice to withdraw into chemical sloth or delusion.

Third, it is wrong to seek rewards you do not deserve. The sensations stimulated by mind-altering drugs are artificially-induced counterfeits of the just elation felt by great athletes after winning a race, of great musicians after successfully playing a masterwork, of soldiers after surviving victorious combat. If you have won the Second World War, or written and conducted Beethoven's Seventh symphony, you are entitled to feel exalted. Otherwise, you are not. It is cheating, and incidentally cheating you will probably pay for later in clinical depression, memory loss, fading of all appetites and other common symptoms experienced by users of narcotics. You will, in many important ways, be less human.

After this, the wrongs get less personal and more politically important, and apply to the well-off and the professionally successful and prominent. It may well be that you can use drugs without doing yourself any major harm. Some people are lucky in this, some less so, if lucky is the word. In any case, the squalid chaos of long-term, slavish drug-abuse is more likely to affect the outcast teenager gibbering in the shop doorway, whose background is illiteracy, stepfathers and abuse, than it is to affect the Eton boy.

But if, as a prominent person with public responsibilities, you take drugs, and if you do not then take every chance to condemn - unreservedly - what you used to do, then you will help to spread the falsehood that this is a harmless course. And if one person, seeing your example, takes such drugs and is ruined by them, then in my view that should be charged to your moral account.

If you allow the fear, that your past may be dragged into the open, to prevent you from making strong public condemnations of such drugs, then it seems to me that you are compromised forever. As for the legal argument, it is quite simple. If the possession laws were properly enforced, rather than being the dead letter they have become, then the potential drug victims of our society would have serious protection - a good, believable excuse for resisting peer pressure. And their worried parents, whose warnings are currently undermined by establishment Cameronism, would have a powerful ally. I am told that the mental hospitals these days provide ample evidence of what can happen when that protection is withdrawn, and that ally is absent.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Drugs
I have noticed from old drug habbit that when people take them bad things coincidentally happen to them. Almost like demonic intrusion into lives to destroy families. Drugs are highly addictive and open an window of opportunity for anything to happen to you. Remember that if our futuristic government had the tecnology to control people they would use a drug habbit to conceal their actions because the word of a drug addict is worthless. But drugs have played a massive role in incriminating usualy good people. The crimes they all do seem to always be fuelled by a drug habbit. Why the coincidence? I never turned to crime with past addictions feel that much of the time we are stoned we are being guided into criminality.
Bonsai

I was relieved to read your article about Cameron in the Mail as it is the first voice I've heard to challenge the premise that a bit of drug abuse in the past is not relevant and just a private matter - a bit like someone who has been the victim of some abuse has the right to privacy. Incredible how politicians and the media can so deftly and convincingly twist truth and hardly anyone notices the slight of hand. I too was taken aback when I heard P. Ainsworth's comment that "only the odd ones out didn't smoke cannabis", and awaited the obvious challenge, of course to be disappointed. Neither I nor any of my friends took drugs, my children and their friends are very much against drugs, and I suspect that the majority of people are of the same experience. This may not be the case for the majority of people in Camerons political and media circle and those who colluded in extinguishing the debate at its first flicker, or almost its first flicker: Did you notice how the flame of this revelation was teasilngly allowed to burn bright for a short time whilst emiting no heat? Cameron's smug unappologetic assertion,whist posing with wife and child in a cosy family tableau, that he may "have done things that were wrong in the past", is a wink towards one particular section of the electorate at the same time as ingratiating himself to other side. Its quite impressive really - depressingly so.

Peter, you have exposed Cameron - and credit to you (in my mind)I am now wondering if he has any redeeming features ; none! he clearly sees himself as Blair's natural heir,that says it all.
In the next election, it looks like Cameron vs. Brown, I despair for the British voters

This post regarding liberal complacency is, i think, rather timely, given the fact that it coincides with Unicef's devastating report into the way that children in the UK are being utterly neglected. While there were a few reasoned contributions, most notably from commentators at Civitas,we were still subjected to the usual claptrap from crashing, misinformed mediocrities. The 'Childrens' Commissioner', Sir Al Aynsley-Green (what has this man ever done that warrants him being called 'sir'?), eventually revealed his true colours when he explained that we should not 'demonise' one parent families. Al was brought up by a single parent, but he doesn't seem to realize that he is the exception, not the rule.

My father, who because his job necessitates it, frequently has to enter these households and informs me of the squalor that is often to be found there. But as Peter pointed out, this is not because of material poverty, rather it is the result of moral depravity. I regularly see these poor things in my town centre, aimlessly loitering in doorways and gazing balefully at passers by. Yesterday some of them even succeeded in entering the school of my young cousin, in an effort to sell their drugs and other assorted poisons. The police managed to turn up fairly quickly and apprehended one of the gang. Doubtless he'll incur a fine which will go unpaid. I thought the New Deal was supposed to rescue these people? The truth is that the nauseating New Labour elite prefers to import immigrants instead whilst giving this entrenched underclass welfare handouts. New Deal? Bum Deal, more like.

Al and many others talked of hurling yet more money at the problem - like comrade Reid is doing in Middlesbrough in a laughable attempt to stem the rising tide of disorder there. I only hope that, when the equally risible Tory Party eventually perishes (and George Dangerfield's magnum opus is a salutary warning for those who still think both the Labour and Tory Party will always survive), we will also be treated to the sight of those who have toadied to these robots, such as Al, Frances Crook, Polly Toynbee and all the rest of the phonies, strolling off into the sunset. To be sure, there are some fairly intelligent liberals, such as Jonathan Freedland, who do occasionally venture into the real world. But their hegemony in public life has gone on for far too long. Let us hope that soon it will all come crashing down.

I love real ale and I love playing classical guitar. Luckily both go together well but not too much of either (in my humble opinion) or it's back to The Wild Rover, American Pie and Chubby-Brown's Alice quicker than you can say "A pint of Hobgoblin pleeeease."

I have spent years learning to play Recuerdos De La Alhambra (tremolo study by Tarrega)but that magical moment of euphoria still eludes me even on the rare occaision I manage to get through it without stopping. You see, I have played it so much that I am utterly sick of it now; but it can't be said that I haven't worked exceedingly hard for a high that I know is never likely to come.

I'm sure it's true that these pieces bring unrestrained joy only to those who are gifted enough to learn them without excessive drudge. And by 'gifted' I mean that they didn't 'earn' the right to euphoria in the laborious way that I think Mr Hitchens meant.

Hi Peter, first of all, I feel obliged to declare my own ‘private past’ - I blew holes in my aura with my youthful consumption of Cannabis, LSD and speed. And didn’t gain one useful spiritual insight out of it!

If I were you I would be thrilled that the BBC reminds viewers of your revolutionary Marxist past at every opportunity – that gives real credibility to what you say now.

It is interesting you speak approvingly of Peter Tatchell, because he is the one prominent Leftist (in this country) I can think of who isn’t a hypocrite – he took the beating Mugabe’s thugs gave him and continued living in a pitiful rented flat in an insalubrious part of London – he is the sort of person one would ‘die to defend your right to say it.’

Re: the Liberals and their recreational drug taking – that is something I have thought a lot about recently. Whereas in the past it was more or less taken for granted that with the experience of life itself one would drift from youthful socialistic idealism to pragmatic conservatism, with all the people that matter – and I mean the entire Liberal elite in the Media, Arts and Politics -that just doesn’t happen anymore. And yet the entire history of the country since the 1960s is a daily refutation of their ideology. The only way I can think they can stave off that terrible knowledge (the Truth) that drifts into the conscious mind when one is off guard (say at 6am on a clear morning) must be to subvert it by the illusion of a casually administered recreational intoxicant – this will make it possible to believe in their fake alternative truth at least for the duration – and stave off that horrible glimpse of the real Truth once more.

In response to Richard Parker's thoughtful submission: I have recently exchanged views with the Assistant Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police who proposes that it is a good idea to provide heroin courtesy of the NHS - at a time of ward closures and medical staff redundancies.

THIS is the sort of idiocy that comes from not having a clearly delineated line in the sand.

Re: the issue of drugs. Having been an abuser of hard drugs for a period, I recognise all too well your description of the unearned feeling of satisfaction and the anaesthetic effct when it comes to whatever ails you. I had acheived many ambitions in my career and was very successful, but had neglected my personal life and was in fact deeply unhappy. I'm off the drugs because I sat down one day and worked out why I was unhappy and resolved to put it right. I continue to work on this and hope that I never need a drug to artifically raise my mood again. If prohibition worked, I'd be in favour. I don't believe it ever will. There will always be a market and therefore always a motive for smugglers and dealers to find ways to keep one step ahead. Some of the most recent research in this field concluded that drug classification has little correlation with harm, and listed various drugs in order of danger. Alcohol and tobacco were included as benchmarks. The vast majority of currently illegal drugs fell below alcohol in terms of potential harm. If society accepts alcohol, the most rational and evidence-based approach must now be to accept all other less dangerous drugs. Regulate them, sell them, stick government health warnings on them, tax them and destroy the illegal markets. Why not?
You state, quite correctly, that drug use is selfish. So it is. But don't individuals have the right to choose to take risks with their health? Don't we all do this everyday in many other ways? Isn't any other approach simply a symptom of the nanny state? Not forgetting that there is a difference between 'use' and 'abuse' of any drug.

Regarding the implications of smoking canabis. Back in the eighties the conservative American magazine "National Review" opened its pages to debate whether canabis should continue to be illegal or legalised. i.e: Old Conservatives v. right of centre libertarians. The articles were extremely good. But the most enlightening comments came the following month in a letter from a University student who had been studying the structure of DNA and had started smoking 'pot'. The effect that surprised her and lead her to stop her drug habit was not so much the problem she experienced of reduced concentration & memory, but of a sudden overwhelming thought that such scientific studies into the building blocks of life were quite pointless and she should quit. This should tell us all we need to know about this drugs effect on the human brain.

Did Mr H really just say that its morally wrong to get a bit tipsy on a saturday night because it simulates the natural high 'of soldiers after surviving victorious combat'? I'm not very musical, dont fancy a war, to slow to win an athletics medal, so is a chardonnay induced state of cheerfulness with a nice meal all that bad? Perhaps I should just sit on a spike, eating gruel revelling in the misery of my existance waiting for the collape of the tories and a time warp to circa 1952?

I too have often been confused by the sheer uselessness of the Left in this country. The fact is that for all their posturing about the evils of Bush (or, bizarrely, Blair), they do not anticipate our political Establishment being quickly replaced by one that is very much worse. They’re not afraid of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, and they consider Iran and North Korea and even China to be far away countries of which we know little. I’ve also often wondered about the sheer number of former Communists, such as John Reid, Charlie Whelan and of course Peter Mandelson himself, who went on to become hardcore members of New Labour. Even supposedly acute conspiracy theorists on the Left, such as Robin Ramsay of Lobster magazine, haven’t seemed to notice this. (How many members of the modern Labour Party are or have ever been agents of the British Security Services?)

Although it’s true that Peter Hitchens has never stood for public office, he did as a member of the Tory Party put himself forward as a candidate to replace Alan Clarke as parliamentary candidate for Kensington and Chelsea. (He was beaten by Michael Portillo.) From the point of view of the liberal BBC of course, Peter Hitchens does have one thing in common with his Trotskyist former self in that he’s still pretty loopy. That he gets on fairly well with Peter Tatchell may well clinch it in the minds of many.

The news about David Cameron’s drugs bust as a 15-year-old schoolboy has actually given him the political space to take a harder line (no pun intended) against drugs. (See today’s Torygraph.) It rather leads me to wonder how this non-story got out in the first place. To me the only interesting thing to come out of this the photograph of Cameron and Boris Johnson in the Bullingdon together – and hence presumably the focus on Eton, rather than on Oxford, as locus of this absurd story. Cameron doesn’t give a stuff about drugs, but he does care about being seen as part of a small clique of Hooray Henries who have taken over what’s left of the Conservative Party and are turning it into a drop-in club for spoilt rich kids. The nonsense about drugs is about making him look cool and leftwing, rather than nasty and rightwing, which is probably nearer the truth.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that Cameron won't talk to you. I've seen him struggle with relatively benign questioning - any advisor would have him steer clear of you. But the main reason he is a potential prime minister is, it seems to me, that he is 'good with the media'. That's his value to the party isn't it? That's what they saw in him.

Your campaign, which I support, is on the other hand largely undermined by the media. I think you suffer by putting yourself on The Daily Politics or even Question time. If you had spin doctors they would probably have you avoid such exposure. I know this goes against your principals but my perception is that it carries more weight than you may realise.

On the Daily Politics the other day the ridicule (rather than reasoned response) to your arguments sort of worked - as did the ticker tape mention of your Marxist past. It is a kind of propaganda that feeds into the hypnotic assumptions of the modern mind, conditioned by the media and teaching establishment. Your ideas are now so at odds with the 'middle way' that you are set up as entertainment. I cringed at the emotional responses to your opinions on one episode of Question Time and was left scratching my head as to why you seemed to lose the debate - they make you seem weak by ridicule I think. I don't know what the answer is by the way but I'd prefer to see you winning.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.